Boeing really needed to get some data from the 787-8 before finishing up the 787-9.

I think they really needed that data before they could do the plans for the 787-10. Also with it looking like the 787-8 would never fly at one point and years and years of backlog on the -8/-9 - why even think about the -10?

But now the -8 is flying and data on loads, structure, fuel flows, etc is available they can decide what to do, what to offer, when the production line might have room, what airlines would buy, etc. Shop the power points around the world.

Seems to me with the current backlog, the -10 should not be hurried, but its plans and/or 777NG plans need to be in place to counter the A350.

My guess: Launch Customer Lufthansa, they wanted the plane for a long time and were very reluctant ordering the A350.
The 787-10 would offer engine commonality with the 747-8I and another Boeing type to their Airbus dominated fleet.

It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

Wouldn't that be one stretch too far for the 788 frame? Some people seem to think the 787-10 is already pushing it. If the -10 gets a bigger wing and higher MTOW, I guess it would also need new (bigger) main gear. The -11 would need an even higher MTOW... so even bigger wing? Or make the same wing for the -10 and -11?

Quoting columba (Reply 7):The 787-10 would offer engine commonality with the 747-8I and another Boeing type to their Airbus dominated fleet.

LH to me seems like a great candidate for the a350 to be honest. The a350-900 can replace the a343 and eventually the a333 (but those are brand new). The a350-1000 can replace the a346 down the line. They don't seem to have a need for anything smaller, so no a350-800 (or 788).

Engine commonality has also not really played a role with LH so far. The 737, a319, a320 and a343 fleets have CFM engines, the a321's have IAE engines, the a333, a346 and a380 fleets have RR engines and the 744 (and 748) GE. Not to mention the PW engines on the upcoming C-series fleet.

But... LH has surprised before with their aircraft orders, so who knows....

Another airline that may be quite interested in the 787-10 (especially with 8500nm range) is AF/KL. IIRC they are planning a big order this year...

A 787-10 would only be successful if it has the range of the 787-8, or at least that of the 777-200ER. A simple payload/range trade won't be more than a niche aircraft, not very appealing for airlines IMO. The A350-900 offers a lot more flexiblity, airlines have proved in the past that they don't mind a little extra weight penalty or higher price tag as a result.

I can't see a 787-10 with around 8000NM max range being realised without a major (and costly!) redesign

Quoting columba (Reply 7):My guess: Launch Customer Lufthansa, they wanted the plane for a long time and were very reluctant ordering the A350.

I just don't really understand their reluctance, it seems like a perfect replacement for their A340 fleet.

Which I do not rule out as an option for Boeing to develop. Especially if they would drop the plans for the B777-make-over.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 8):Wouldn't that be one stretch too far for the 788 frame? Some people seem to think the 787-10 is already pushing it. If the -10 gets a bigger wing and higher MTOW, I guess it would also need new (bigger) main gear. The -11 would need an even higher MTOW... so even bigger wing? Or make the same wing for the -10 and -11?

I would guess the new landing gear and wing would be necessary for the B787-10/11 family if Boeing was to go along that path. It is a tough choice when you can also redevelope the B777 which is still a very good airframe. But the more modern option is to go for the B787-10/11 imho.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 5):With an increase in the wingspan for better range the 787-10 can compete directly with the A350-900 in the size and range category.

I agree. Boeing should do what it takes to make the 787-10 a strong performer and then leverage the developments into a 787-9LR. Boeing should make sure that the 787-10 can at least cover all 777-200ER flights and possibly even the 777-200LR as well. This would allow the 777NG to be optimized for the 77W size and not make compromises.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):Which I do not rule out as an option for Boeing to develop.

I wouldn't rule it out either, and depending on how many changes need to be made for a 787-10, the 787-11 might become a very attractive prospect. But at this point, I think that whether the -11 becomes an option depends on what the -10 actually becomes.

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):I think a upgraded 777-200ER/LR will still be heavy.

I wonder if they are taking a serious consideration to Tim Clarks wishes for a 777NG? He wants the 777-200 to be stretched in halfway compared to the 777-300ER stretch and has named it the 777-250, and he wants the 777-300 to be stretched even further to a 777-400. That way the payload/range would probably make the 777-250 a better performer and it makes sense if the simple stretch 787-10 is what Boeing is planning for.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 9):A 787-10 would only be successful if it has the range of the 787-8, or at least that of the 777-200ER. A simple payload/range trade won't be more than a niche aircraft, not very appealing for airlines IMO.

The A330-300 shows that range is not always critical. On missions up to 5000Nm the A330 is a incredible performer. I am sure the 787-10 would be as well.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 9):I just don't really understand their reluctance, it seems like a perfect replacement for their A340 fleet.

Would be nice to see Lufthansaa do the same as UA. Taking both the A350 and the 787. They opted for the 747 as well as the A380

Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas

I hope Boeing goes for a 63m+ wingspan, higher MTOW and triple-bogie with ~8200nm range to really compete with the A359. Then Boeing will have the 788 market to itself, the 789 to handle the A358, the 7810 to handle the A359, and the 777EW or whatever Boeing does with that to handle the A3510. Sounds like a smart move to me.

We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 4):If Boeing decides to make the "777-8" and "-9" the pure 10-abreast airframe, the proposed 787-10 would sit nicely between the shorter Triple Seven and the 787-9.

This makes sense from a product differentiation strategy. Rather than going head to head with the A359, a 787-10 that is a straight stretch with no major updates (i.e. same-sized wing, slightly strengthened landing gear) could offer enough range for many carriers and rival the CASM of the A359. A 787-10 with a range of 7,000 NMi would still be considered Trans-Pacific with Trans-Atlantic routes being serviced nicely as well. Carriers wanting more range (middle-eastern and the Aussie/Kiwis carriers? ) could look to the 777-8 and -9 which, if updated and stretched from the current 777 base, would also compare favorably with the A359 and A350-1000 on a CASM basis. A 787-10/777NG combo could squeeze the A359 into being a niche plane. Also, the lower investment and quicker time to market makes that simple stretch option appealing. As Richard Aboulafia noted in a recent newsletter ( http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=311 ) building planes with big wings to provide more range caters to one market at the expense of others. As such, with a simple stretch 787-10, Boeing could offer the marketplace the right-sized plane (i.e. most efficient) for most missions.

One thing is certain, it is good to hear whispers of new product proposals again. Just recently it seemed like the 787-10 was on the back burner and the program was retrenching with the virtual elimination of the 787-3 Now, as Boeing retires more risk and digests the data from the 787 certification testing, we can look forward to Boeing moving from performing triage on the 787 program to maximizing its potential.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):This makes sense from a product differentiation strategy. Rather than going head to head with the A359, a 787-10 that is a straight stretch with no major updates (i.e. same-sized wing, slightly strengthened landing gear) could offer enough range for many carriers and rival the CASM of the A359. A 787-10 with a range of 7,000 NMi would still be considered Trans-Pacific with Trans-Atlantic routes being serviced nicely as well.

I like this way of thinking.

The 787-10 "straight stretch" shouldn't just compete with the A359 CASM, it should handily undercut it. It will be substantially lighter with similar engine technology. The aircraft has the potential to be as dominant within its range envelope as the A330-300 has been.

And Boeing always has the 772LR (or an updated variant) available for customers who need more payload range. It will fall slightly behind the A359 in CASM even at 10-abreast, but it can do things the A359 can only dream of.

I think the fate of the 787-10 is inextricably intertwined with the fate of the 777. If they opt for an upgrade of the 77W and basically abandon the 772, then the 787-10 makes sense. If they opt for an entirely new 777 replacement, then it depends on how big it will be. If it is going to be a direct replacement then the 787-10 makes no sense. If it starts at the 77W and goes bigger than we will see the 787-10. It's really too early to know which way they'll go. Much will depend on how the 787 actually performs, and how the economy performs. It will also depend on how good the A350 is as well, especially the A350-1000. We have a lot of time before we know the answer to that.

The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):A 787-10/777NG combo could squeeze the A359 into being a niche plane.

I don't know if I agree with this completely. At the end of the day, the A358/359/3510 are one family across a decent range of sizes. The 787/777NG combo has a broader range of capacities, but at the expense of two different families. While I respect what the Boeing option might bring to the table, I can't help but think a single family solution will provide enough of a buffer to keep the A359 from being just a niche plane.

Second carrier to order the 787 way back when it was still the 7E7 , launch customer for the 787-9 . They have already stated that their longhaul plans are based around the 787 and the 77W . They currently have 8 777-200ER which could very easily be replaced with 787-10s . They have been rumoured for quite some time to be interested in the -10 if Boeing develop it .

Quoting ADent (Reply 2):Also with it looking like the 787-8 would never fly

Nobody at Boeing ever believed the 787-8 would never fly. The additional costs to get it airborne weren't known yet, so was the performance of the bird IRL. But it would fly. When A or B start developing a totally new airliner, they are actually betting the company. There is a slight difference in financial risk between A and B, but that is discussed in another topic. When they fail, the company goes busted. Both companies have enough knowledge and experience to know what they are doing, and really do not start doing huge investments when they know there is a small possibility the plane will never have it's maiden flight.

Thinks start do be completely different when taxpayer money gets more and more involved, though.

Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!

I suspect a decision about the -10 will not come until after a firm decision on what to do with the 777. If the 777 is going to receive an update of, say, new wings and other weight savings tech, I think Boeing will do that before tackling the -10.

However, if Boeing decides on a clean sheet design for the 777, then I think they may get the -10 out of the way first.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):I can't help but think a single family solution will provide enough of a buffer to keep the A359 from being just a niche plane.

Works for me! I retract my "niche plane" assertion although I was thinking that a 777NG would have updated avionics/cockpit to offer more commonality with the 787. Any potential squeeze play would be felt when the B and A families collide in a competition over a carrier wanting a broad range of passenger capacities sourced from a single supplier. With the 787/777NG combo, Boeing could offer an broader array of capacities over the A350XWB's. However, these will be limited circumstances as we have seen how carriers are more than willing to go with a mix; United Airlines being a prime example given they changed tunes and split their widebody order between the 787 and A350.